2013 saw the strongest growth. those are the headlines. i'm trial date in new york. "consider this" is up next. remember, you can get the latest news online at aljazeera.com. >> amanda knox reconvicted - her attorney joins us. >> is the american high achievers under attack because of their wealth. >> medical marijuana - growing discontent. >> a look at an underground artist getting recognise >> i'm antonio mora, welcome to "consider this," here is more. >> i don't think there's any

movement or support for the notion that we'll round up and deport 12 million people. >> how we deal with it is important. >> we need to secure the borders. >> i'm declaring a drought emergency in the state of california. >> don't shower longer than you need to, don't flush more than you have to. >> when he has a shovel in his hand he's like a coke addict with a pile of coke. he wants to keep going. >> the academy rescinded that application. >> i'm frustrated and confused ♪ i'm alone but not alone >> we begin with the announcement that amanda knox has been convicted of murder by an italian court. knox and her former boyfriend were found guilty of the 2007 murder of merredin kirchner. they spent two years in prison, then an appellate court

overturned the ruling. last year a retrial was ordered and an appellate court sentenced knox to 28.5 years in prison. knox lives in the u.s. what happens. theodore simon, criminal defense attorney for amanda knox. an appellate court found her incident. how does another find her guilty. >> it's an excellent question, one that is incom pre hencible. a manneda knox -- amanda knox was found innocent by an appellate court jury. at that time there was no evidence and there's no new evidence today. another appellate court jury that reheard the case found her guilty.

that is why this case inevitably and clearly demonstrates a cross miscarriage of justice because there is simply no new evidence, there is no evidence, there was no evidence and there'll never be evidence and that's why this is beyond comprehension how any other verdict could have been other than that of not guilty. >> so now this again will go to the italian supreme court. what do you think will happen there? >> well, you know, obviously we continue to remain hopeful. however, you know, we simply cannot say. i mean, when you review the evidence and you know that this was a horrific gruesome murder, a bloody murder and how tragic a lawsuit is, and to have lost meredith kirchner, there's no evidence in the room where meredith was killed, or on her person. there was no hair, fibre, footprint, shoe print,

handprint, palm print, sweat, d.n.a. or any cell of amanda knox in that room or on meredith's person. that tells you that it's virtually impossible, impossible, an unassailable truth that amanda knox could not have been involved and is not guilty. you cannot remove what you can't see. >> now an appealate court found her guilty. what happens if the verdict is affirmed by the supreme court of italy, there's a gap between the u.s. and italy. most americans think amanda is innocent. most italians think the opposite. >> do you think italy would try to extradiet her from the u.s.? >> it's understandable why the question may be posed. let's understand this. amanda knox was not required to go back to italy for these proceedings, it was lawful for her not to return there. the court said as much.

also, today when the prosecution obtained a conviction, they asked the judge to issue a cautionary arrest warrant. that was rejected. what we have is she will appeal to the supreme court of the italy. we are hope. as soon as the evidence is evaluated, based upon findings and the facts that haven't changed that she was found enjoyment, there is hope and hope and we have to remain vigilant and see what happens. as far as the extradition question, it's not in play unless and until all appeals are over, and then there are substantial defenses if that should come into play. it's not in play at this time. >> i understand. i wanted to ask you a couple of questions about that. a rejection of double jeopardy

is a basic principal of american law. what happened to amanda knox in italy seems to be a violation of double jeopardy, is there a chance that if the italians ask for her to be extradited, that the u.s. would grant it? >> i'm not in the prediction business, and it would be less than prudent for me to explain to you the various defenses that can and would be raised if that ever materializes. there's many more steps in front of us. first, the conviction has to be affirmed, there could be further appeals from that, and they have to make requests to its executive department. before we get to the potential of litigating the questions that would inevitably arise, it's not there. i will tell you for having significant experience in this area, it's not a simple process. it's not simply a matter that we

have an existing bilateral extradition treaty between the two countries. >> it would raise diplomatic questions if we got all the way down the line to that point and she weren't extradited to the u.s., there could be diplomatic issues, if we wanted to extradiet someone who was convicted in the u.s. and fled to italy. >> each case is determined on its own merits. you know, amanda knox's case is unique, given the fact that there's physically no evidence against her, and i think that's a distinguishing and compelling point. there's a profound absence of evidence in this case, and that is not going to change. >> it's incredible that the case is still ongoing. appreciate you coming on. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> we turn to a new republican push for immigration reform, calling for a path to legal

status but not citizenship for 11 million adult immigrants in the u.s. illegally. it's controversial inside and outside the g.o.p. john boehner outlined principals for rewriting immigration laws at the house annual policy retreat. >> the policy has been around 15 years, it's turned into a political football. it's unfair. i think it's time to deal with it. how is important. >> some republicans say they cannot support a path to citizenship to those that broke the law. >> it's a mistake if house republicans supported amnesty for those here illegally. >> for more on a push for immigration reform we are joined by the executive director of immigration studies. let's look at what the

congressman had to say. >> we are looking at ideas based on the principals, which says we want is a system where you can come out of the shadows, and you can be on probation and satisfy the terms of probation while the border is getting secured, if those things are met, you satisfy terms of probation. you learn english, and the border is secured and interior enforcement, then you can get a regular work permit. >> is this a middle ground that could work by putting legalization on old based on a certain number of border security. >> it's not a middle ground. everyone would be legalized. you can be probationary, provisional, whatever adjective you want to use. the amnesty is over at the beginning, before the enforcement happens.

if anyone believes an amnesty to an illegal immigrant will be deamnestied is not living in the real world. >> in a piece you wrote in the "national review", you said laws should be targeted at new immigration, once that's in place, we can move on to no nonlegal nonviolent ileegals afterwards. >> do you think that suggestion of yours focussing on enforcement is realistic. >> i think so. the principles that the house republicans release, are not going to go any where. this is the same as the senate principles, the gang of eight, the difference between the republicans in the house, saying

the amnesty is they won't get citizenship. that's the difference. i don't see this going anywhere. there'll be a need to think through how to address the issue next year and the year after and the year after. >> this is really a big political hot potato. bill schaffeley is looking at polls showing current policies will spell doom for the republican parties and koulter says that immigrants have been the ball work of the democratic party. >> imgrants in general and his panics, whether immigrants or not, are disproportionately big government liberals, supporting more taxation, they are suspicious of capitalism, support gun control - all of those things. the republicans can reach a

significant share of immigrants and his panics, but not the majority of them. it can't happen. it's a fantasy to think so. the first step to evanning ellising, if you will, among conservatives among immigrants is to slow down future immigration, if they don't do that, they'll never catch up. >> don't they meet hispanic voters, 27% of the hispanic vote, it's growing. doesn't the plan reach out to the community that sees deportation, not citizenship as the big issue. >> romney, if he had 70% of the votes he would have lost, his defeat had nothing to do with hispanic vote. number two, american voters, republicans need to reach out. they are doing lousy everywhere, not just among his panics.

a better candidate with a message more tailored to the concerns of wage earners in theed middle class will do well among his panics, not to look at immigration as a magic bullet. it's not. >> what do you think will happen? the republican party, especially with 2014 elections coming up and primaries within the party, where minor republicans might face conservative opposition. they are. especially if they jump aboard the amnesty train. you'll see activity in the house. they may pass a couple of targeted bills. the senate won't act. they are okay with separate bills, but everything that was in the senate package has to be sent over to them, even if it's in pieces. only then will they act on it. i don't see it happening. i think we'll end the year with

no bill on the president's desk. >> it will be an ongoing battle. >> thank you for coming on the show. >> turping to the 1%. are they freaking out. it's become a talking point for politicians and pope francis, putting the wealthy among, bringing one to step forward to complain. >> the 1% are not causing the inequality. they are the job creators. it's absurd to demonize the rich. i feel, however, that as a class i think we are beginning to engage in class warfare. >> joining us from newton massachusetts, the editor and founder of "future of capitalism.com", and the author of "j.f.k. conservative", good

to have you on the show. tom perkins wrote a letter to the "wall street journal," comparing the criticism of the it 1%, the persecution of the 1% to persecution of jews under the nazis. he did apologies. is his message something that strikes a cord with respect the 1%. >> look, it's a bad idea to compare anything other than nazis to nazi germany. perkins is getting attention because he tapped into a real feeling. taxes are going up. politicians are dema going -- dema gogging the issue, they are demonizing them suggesting they are to blame. >> what is the fear. yes, we have the attacks -

income tax increase, but other than that president obama, when he talked about it in the state of the union didn't really say anything that would seriously impact the lives of the nation's top earners. >> well, president obama used the term fat cats to describe the wall street bankers. the occupy wall street protest. use of violent rhetoric with column by junior professor jeff sax encouraging the crowds to take what is theirs. the tax increases can't be waved away. these are people already paying tens of millions, hundreds of millions in taxes, and now the mayor of new york wants to raise taxes on taxpayers in new york. even though the governor of new york says the tax increases are necessary to pay for the mayor's programs. it's vicinityive, and that's

real money that the people are paying in taxes. more than half of what they earnt in a lot of cases in california or new york city. that can start to chaff. >> i do want to get to the mayor of new york in a moment. the gulf between the richest 1% and the rest of america is the widest it's been since the roaring 20s. you have people making hundreds of millions. is there some room for adjustment. i hear what you say. people in the highest tax areas are paying 50% in the dollar. isn't there room for the richest among us to give back more. >> well, the very richest people, warren buffet and bill gates signed pledges to give away more than half of what they earn. bill gates is helping poor people in africa, sick children fighting disease there, who are

much poorer than the poorest people here in america. they are giving back a lot philanthropically and through their income taxes, rich people in america i paying more than they are getting back in terms of services, and a lot of people in the bottom quintiles are not paying any at all. they are taking more in food stamps or welfare payment than they are paying in taxes. we should tackle the poverty, opportunity, growth issue, but framing it as inequality suggests that these people who got to the top by working hard, bill gates -- >> is your problem with the rhetoric than anything else? >> yes, but the rhetoric is a problem. if people in america get the idea that there's something wrong with being rich, they'll stop starting companies, they'll stop working hard.

and they'll feel bitter towards each other. president obama attracted everyone's attention by talking about one america, not red versus blue, rich versus poor. we have gotten away interest that unfortunately. >> you mentioned bill de blasio, the new mayor in new york. last week there was a big to-do because the upper east side, their streets were not ploughed during a snow storm and people thought it was revenge on bill de blasio's part who called for higher taxes on richer new yorkers. what could the consequences be. would people leave new york if taxes were higher. >> people are leaving new york and moving to florida, some are moving to connecticut, where the taxes are lower. i have friend saying one of the benefits of being rich is you get to live where you want to

live. at a certain point it's economically suicidal to choose to live in new york, when you can move to florida where there's no income tax at all. the tv and radio host announced that he would move out of new york following other conservative talk show hosts, and the governor of florida called him to convince him to move down. particularly at the high end, capital, jobs, mobile, and it's easy to move from state to state. harder to move out of the united states, but some people have done that too, moving to singapore, switzerland for other tax havens. >> we'll see where the debate goes, great to have you on the show. >> coming up, push back against pot. growing concern from communities that wish legalized marijuana will go up in smoke.

california in chris size -- crisis over a devastating drought. harmeli aregawi tracks the trending stories. >> there's a global learning crisis. i'll tell you more coming up. what do you think:

>> legal recreation of marijuana has been on the march winning on

ballots in colorado and washington state. some communities are pushing back. proponents like to talk about tax revenue marijuana provides, money that won't go to the plaque market. users celebrated after a referendum past that made the drug legal. >> 3, 2, 1 [ cheering ] . >> did you think you would see this day? >> i did not. i'm glad it's here now. >> opponents do not share the sentiments, saying marijuana is an addictive gate way drug that can damage adults and adolescents. i'm joined by pavtor rosetta horn, a non-denomin national minister. great to have you with us. what has happened in your community since marijuana became legal. has it caused problems? >> well, i tell you it caused a

great deal of problems. the people are divided. the council is divided and there's a lot of trust ration. were you praised when voters approved marijuana and made it legal. >> you know, i was quite shocked was i didn't realise we had lowered our standards to that degree. >> i know that people in your family had some issues with marijuana. >> we have. i had a sister that was 11 years old. she started using marijuana when she was 11. she died when she was - i think she was 46 years old, all starting with marijuana. she was at the place where she couldn't live any more.

her body wasted away. it starts with the seed, a small thing. i have never seen a seed not grow into something bigger. i've had brothers that has been in prison because of the marijuana, family members. i had - i work with a program called the mentor's program. i can't tell you the time i had to take them into the cabin and try to get them off the drugs and watch them cry and watch the frustrations with their families and the hurt and the pain that the families have to suffer. >> yak ima is one of a number of washington communities where the city councils voted to ban marijuana businesses. that effort is legal. cities can ban the businesses. now the aclu and others are trying to ban the bans. what do you thing will happen.

do you think more communities will try to ban businesses? >> i think that we need to rally together and stand up and be counted. in regards to this ban. i hope that other cities will band together and rally for what you believe in. if you believe it's wrong to have marijuana, and you should ban it, we need to stand up and be counted. we are considered to be the leaders and authority of what is right in a value system. if we don't stand together and give the message to the nation that this is wrong, where is the world going to go? >> now, i want to read you comments president obama made about marijuana in an interview published last week. the president said:

>> what was your reaction to that? >> well, the problem i see with that is it sounds like the president - what is good for the goose should be good for the gappeda. if there's nothing wrong with it, why can't his daughters have it in. in one article he stated it could be an experiment with colorado and washington. why not experiment with your daughters. i'm very, very appalled at that statement because high as a leader of the federal government said no, it should be no. he, of all people, should learn the protocol. he can have his views, that's fine. i want to commend the federal government because they have

made a statement to say no, but the states have said we'll flip up the backside and we'll do it anyway. what is the federal going to do, what consequences will there be, someone has to have some consequences and send a message. we said no, we the people said no. >> we have a social media question, let's go to harmeli aregawi for that. >> vieweral ex says "i've yet to see a downside that is commen'surate to the damage of the war on drugs", he's referring to people gaoled for nonviolent offenses like marijuana possession. are you concerned about people being gaoled for nonviolent offenses like marijuana. >> there's a great threat to this democracy of the civil society, and that is mankind himself, his morals and values.

because we don't life by god's standards, we have a lot of problems. if you break the law, i think you should go to gaol. i think there'll be ramifications that we are not looking at, with the people going on marijuana. you have bus drivers that are driving little kids to school, drivers that are driving your seniors around town, air flights, and all kinds of transportation assistance, and, you know, let me say plainly there's no way i would trust a pharmacist so feel my prescription after he's had a reefer. just because it brings in revenue, now we think it's okay. now we are prostitutes. >> people's ideas and morals and certain thinks ekoefl over time.

a poll found that half adults believed: >> what would you say, a quick final word to people who want businesses to sell marijuana? >> you know what, the federal said no. god has said no. god makes the constitution. >> god said no about marijuana? >> he has said no about the way that we live our lives. he said we are not to be drunk with the things of the world, such as marijuana. to be filled with his spirit. without his spirit they won't know what the constitution is. man can make their own constitution. it saddens me a think america lowered their standards to the degree that we would rather sell

drawings, and at some point we have to have balance, and we have lost the concept of what it means to have balance or order. any time a person goes, and you leave out the order. what is the nation to do, but leave itself to ruin, as a nation we became our own god, that's the old philosophy. a man without god, he can only go as far as man can go. it's time for somebody to tell the truth. >> it is good to have your perspective. thank you for coming on the program. >> switching topics to the drought. 2013 was the triest year for california since records were kept in the 19th century. 94% of the state is experiencing drought conditions, 9% suffering an exceptional drought. governor brown declared a drought state of emergency and

said the state should prepare for a long one. >> we are facing a serious drought. hopefully it will rain, who knows. there's evidence in the past that droughts went on for centuries. >> for more i'm joined from sacramento by timothy quinn, the executive director of the association of californian water agencies. it rained in california on wednesday, breaking a 52 day dry streak. >> too little, too late. we are dry. >> the rainy season, this is the time when you are supposed to get rain, lasting until the end of june. california assist way behind. we have never seen anything like this. this is the driest stretch in california's history. >> you sent a couple of pictures to illustrate the drought. one shows you standing next to a

tree stump in a desert and a small owa sis. the other shows rocks and rubble on the bottom of fulsome lake. what do the areas look like if california received normal average rain and snow melt? >> under normal continues i would be under 70 to 100 feet of water. as it is, i can see across the lake to the dam. there's not an inch of water. fulslome lake, a primary source of water doesn't qualify as a puddle right now. >> it's incredible. 17 small water districts are facing severe water shortages that they could run out of water in the next few months. what can the state do to help them through the crisis. >> the governor last week declared emergency drought conditions, and the emergency powers are large.

he has the power to order water to move from one point to another, helping a lot of areas that are stressed. it won't solve the problem, but can help them. in some cases there's not much you can do. they are in the wrong place. the emergency declaration will help. the government insisted all californians reduce water use. this is my fourth drought. the california's experience drought. the fourth i went to, the third as water management. if the people get the understanding that this is a state-wide crisis, they'll reduce water use. as the governor called for that. some are called to reduce their water usage by 30%. some have said we are up in the mountains, we don't have lawns. 30% is something we can't do. is that the case? >> in some cases there may be trucking water, because you get

down to public safety and help. in the sacramento area it won't we that bad. unless we get major storms through, you are looking at 20, 30, 50% mandatory rationing. it will be worse in the agricultural economy where they experience systematic effects of the drought. >> because you guys have a $35 million agricultural industry, producing more food than any other state in the united states. how badly damaged are california's farms? >> it will depend on where the farm is, and the water supply. a lot will be in trouble. we've seen estimates that there'll be 500,000 acres fa fallowed for lack of water. it translates to billions in lost income. >> part of the problem is there's no snow in the

mountains, or minimal compared to other years, the know melt is important for the rivers and licks in calf. >> they did a know survey today after the last little storm, and it's at 12%. it is abyss mally low. the two big water projects that supply water to the state economy have both declared they will deliver no water to the california economy this year, unless there's a miraculous turn of events. the state and the federal prospects announced zero concerns. >> are there long-term solutions, some droughts lasted not for years, but science showed there has been droughts for centuries. >> a lot of california invested in better management of the water. they'll pay off this year. if won't hurt nearly as much as

it would have. the government has, within the past week put out his administration's vision of our future in which we have to invest in more recycling, more conservation, fix a place in california where we like to argue about water policy with a $15 billion infrastructure fix, and the need to invest in storage. the parts that have invested in storage for the last 20 years will work through the drought better than those that have not. frankly, governor has provided leader that that we need. he's announcing we'll deal with the 2014 crisis, and has the right plan for investing in the future. the next time we are hit by one of these which seem to come around every couple of decades. the california economy will be better protected than this year. >> a big issue for a popular state. >> thank you for your time.

>> time to see what is trending on the website. >> are you an agency report released. there's a global learning crisis. the u.n. educational scientific and cultural organization, a third of children are unable to read, write or do basic maths. 250 million of 6 million kids between the ages of five and 11. what is more, 57 million of them don't attend school. unesco representatives said, "this global learning crisis is caused by a lack of well-trained teachers in impover irked areas. she said: >> on twitter a conversation broke out about this story, some don't see it as a prop: -- problem: ♪ ♪ and a response:

>> you can read more at the website aljazeera.com. >> straight ahead - the oscar nominated look at an artist who works in a unique space and risks his life. is america the land of opportunity, worrisome numbers about children. >> did a film get stripped of an oscar nomination for an action plenty of others do freely?

>> we continue the series looking at oscar nominated documentaries. "cave digger" follows a garbage man who has been an unusual artist. it's been nominated for best documentary - short subject.

>> i'm obsessed. >> when he has a shovel in his hand, he's like a coke addict with piles of coke. he want to keep going. >> he's not the typical person. he does things for art. >> i don't put energy into being a success. my strategy is to wait for something from heaven. >> i had ideas for ages that i never got to try. i want to create a space that is transformative. >> we are joined from los angeles by the director and producer. "cave digger" opens three at rickly in select cities and playing with the other nominated entries. and will be able on cavedyinger.com. >> you follow a man as he builds artistic caves, he does them by hand, doesn't use dynamite,

power tools, all by himself, can you describe his work for the people that haven't seen the film. >> there's a particular material that he can work in that has the combination of malyabilityy to it and a firmness. he released material and can see from the outside of the mountain the shape inside and digs in one direction, creating the kath eated ral like spaces. >> it's amazing to see what he manages to create out of something that i think most people look at a mountain and can't imagine something like that. one of the came has bookshelves, doors, and all sorts of details. how liveable are the spaces? >> that is probably the most liveable of the caves he created. it's wired for electricity and

has incertainly plumbing and a bathroom in it. the other caves are more used for meditation or just, you know, relaxing or chanting. i think people tend to use the caves more for that. he's a sculptor two, doing incredible artwork on the walls of the caves. he's not formally trained as an artist and writes an apology note he wears around his neck in case there's an incident and rescuers have to come and get his body if something happens and it collapses around it. how dangerous is what he does. >> that note that he put around his neck was something that he did when he started his first cave 30 years ago. he was the first guy to have done this and wasn't sure that

the material would hold up. he has done 14 caves, i think, since that time, and xopt for one, they held up. that one he was digging in material he was not familiar with. that is the reason that cave came gown. he seems to have an inner conflict. when he gets work for clients, clients ask him to build a cave. he has an issue with that. >> i couldn't quite get into the mind-set that we were working together. he was off on his lone artist thing. >> it's important for me to have a rapport with the people i'm doing a project with. they have to trust me to a tern degree. they have input, but i am not the paint brush, and my client is not the painter.

>> your film says something in general about artists, that it's something they have to do, it's not a choice, and he seems to let his relationships go when he's digging, he's obsessed with his project. >> yes, i would say obsessed is a word he uses about himself. there's no place he would rather be than under the earth digging or carving. for me it's an unpleasant profession. but it gives him tremendous joy and fulfilment. what can you say about that? he has no youngster. this is a lot of work, it's impressive that a man, anyone could do that, much less a man his age. but he also doesn't seem to - he barely charges any money when he is working for a client. these things are incredible. why hasn't he tried to do that? >> you know, he hasn't controlled any of the properties

at all where he's had his caves made. they are all commissioned works, except for the first thing that he did, which was on public land. it really isn't up to him to do that, to actually make money out of it, but he is a person who has never been driven by material thingsment he said he could live in a tent, and he really wants to work all day long, every day. >> he's trying to build one final cave. >> he is. he's working on his magnum onus 2, the nag numb opus 1 being the cave with a chung of ceiling that fell. i was there on the day he broke ground for the cave. i thought okay, we'll have the film be the start of the cave, and the end of the field when the cave is done. then he revealed that it would take him 10 years to do.

that didn't work out. >> it's an incredible story. great to have you with us. "cave digger" opens in select cities, playing with all the oscar nominated documentaries. it will be on demand within a week on cavedigger.com. >> why some feel the opportunity to win in america is not why it used to be. and stripped of an oscar nomination, why an email is blamed for a film's lost honour.

>> today's data dive checks whether america is the land of opportunity. a new gallop poll finds 80% of americans feel their children

have the opportunity to learn and grow. sounds good. that ranks america as 19th out of the 29 countries surveyed. lesser optimism is a result of attitudes caused by hard economic times, and the fact that polls showed 65% of americans felt the country was on the wrong track. switzerland came out with 95% feeling their kids missed a great opportunity. >> the county with the lowest score. estonia, hit hard by the european debt crisis in 2008 and twain. >> there are other concerns about kids in america. when you ask whether sids in this country are treated with respect and dignity, 66% feel they are. >>

>> coming up, why did a movie lose on oscar nomination over something done in hollywood all the time.

>> an oscar scandal erupted because of a nomination earnt but taken away.

"alone yet not alone", from a movie of the same title was disqualified after the song's writer, a former member of the board of the academy was found to be calling and emailing academy members during the voting period. let's bring in bill wyman, an al jazeera culture critic. good to have you with us. we are hear constantly about questionable activities, but rarely see action on the part of the academy. why this song, in this movie. >> it seems to have been something that really raises the appearance of inappropriate possess, and the academy runs a very tight ship. we talked about the grammies, they are really run - they do a lot of things that most would frown on. i admire the academy for taking the action when they find something. this is an obscure movie,

playing in l.a. no one heard of it. for it to come up with a high-profile nomination, at least you could see why some radar went off. >> bruce routin at the center of the scandal responded in dismay saying it's somewhere between devastated, disappointment, dejection. the academy awards have in the pulled a nomination for a long time. do you think this will change things, that there'll be tougher control, even than the one you are describing that already exists? >> i think that it's good. it reminds everyone. remember 10-15 years ago a famous director wrote an essay and the l.a. times talking about martin scorescaies gangs, and he was an official. that caused a stink, when it was discovered that he didn't write the editorial, it was written by him.

that caused consternation and the academy did not take action, but a lot of members wanted to withdraw their votes about that. it could have hurt gangs in new york. it does happen in the past. every once in a while you want to execute an admiral. >> it was emails and phone calls. people spend millions to promote their movies, songs, actors, so why is what he did a big deal? >> he was on an academy executive committee. that's the thing. some of the people who have been leaping to his defense say i get all the calls from pub lis sifts. that's the distinction. academy rules say people shouldn't do what they shouldn't be doing and we'll leave it up to the officials to decide when something is bad. don't do anything bad because it may be included.

it's written to say anything they think reflect badly on the academy. i like the award. they run a tight ship. you can criticise them. it's an ethical organization, they don't want to damage their brand. let's turn to television. hbo has a series true detective that a lot of people are watching and they get to big movie stars. matthew mcconaughey and woody harrelson - are the big stars going to go smaller? >> yes and no. a lot of movie stars have gone to tv. on the other hand you don't see tom hanks or george clooney aching to go back to the small screen. the people that do are character actors, where there is a difference between tv and movie actors. movie actors are larger than life.

there's a quality to the drama actors, "the sopranos", "the wire", and such. actors, mcconnaughsey and harrelson, they were not typical leading me, they are kind of decep ied. >> they'd like the description. >> thing of matthew, he was a big muscled star, and basically destroyed his career. he looks worse for wear and tear, but the accolades have been extraordinary. >> you have a point. a lot of the film stars are more character actors. you have people like claire danes, a leading lady, and mc-conoughey. >> kevin spacey. >> jeff daniels in "the newsroom", and he's older, but

was general a leading man for many years. >> yes, and it's something we talked about. tv is getting better and better. the high-end movie industry is getting smaller. you can see the converningens "true detective" is a hell of a show, working on so many levels. i think i heard the writer of the show found matthew mcconoughey who said "you gotta get woodry harrelson", and i think they'd be surprised howl it turned out. the many layers, it's an adventure some tv show in terms of cinematography and the love the sinna mattic stuff that goes on under the scenes in the rural south. >> it's interesting to see how television, as many stars are saying, seems to become the more respected art form and there's a reverse snobbery beginning,

where some of the stars prefer tv to movies. we'll stay on the story, as always, good to have you with us: the show may be over, but the conversation continues on the website aljazeera.com/consid aljazeera.com/considerthis. >> allegations of human rights violations in ukraine. police accused of beating journalists and medical workers during protests. now the u.s. is getting involved in resolving the situation. >> a little girl rescued from the rubble of a bombed out home in syria. a look at how she is recovering after this ordeal. >> tragedy in kentucky blamed for an electrical fire. flames burningou